THS '22

Currently attending Wichita State University where I am kinda sorta on the debate team!

I did debate throughout middle and high school, mainly LD and policy, as well as a few speech events. I understand policy debate well; K debates are still a struggle, but I promise I am learning! LD was fun for me, I enjoy judging it and have a solid understanding of the way things go, but I really appreciate feisty LD debaters :)

Above all: be a good person, don't cheat (clipping, recording w/o consent, etc.), and say good words well!

Hello!

My name is Ava Autrey (they/them!) and I am a freshman at William Jewell College. I have done just about every event in the book. I am a 2x National Qualifier in HI and a national finalist in Poetry.

I also am a parli debater, but have had experience in all forms. i don’t know this years topic, 

Info:

He/They

North Kansas City HS, Policy (2018-2022)--Immigration, Arms Sales, CJR, Water

William Jewell College, NPDA/NPTE (2022- )

Call me Trent, please

put me on the email chain -- trentd434@gmail.com

Email title should be Tournament -- Round # -- Aff (School Code) v. Neg (School Code)

TL;DR

I'll flow what you say--do with that what you will.

***None of the preferences written below are strong enough to change the outcome of a debate, but adjusting to these preferences will increase your chances of winning, and most likely raise your speaks.***

tech + truth > tech > truth

Being rude/condescending will most likely lead to docked speaks.

I'll listen to almost any argument as long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, transphobic, etc.

I am cool with speed, but you need to be clear. I'll say "clear" twice and then stop flowing until I can understand you.

Life (probably) has value. Extinction is most likely bad, but I'll hear what you have to say

I'll start at 28/28.5 and go up or down.

Post-round if you want. I don't really care. I should have to defend my decision just as much as you should have to defend your case.

Cool charts

Teams should adapt------------------------------X-Judge should adapt

Policy-------------------------X------K

Tech----------X---------------------Truth

X Counterplans aren't fair---------------------------X----Counterplans are fun

Nothing competes-----------------------X--------Summers 94

Conditionality good--X-----------------------------Conditionality bad

Reasonability----------------------------X---Competing interpretations

Death good is acceptable-----------------X-------------You might just be a bad person

DA

Yes. Da's are good and cool. Not much to say here.

Generic links can be okay as long as you contextualize them.

Turns case args need to be carded.

I have a high threshold for new 1ar arguments and must be able to draw a line.

Evidence comparison matters. It'll make me a lot happier, give you higher speaks, and make my decision cleaner if I don't have to sift through your card doc looking for warrants that you failed to make in the 2nr.

Normal DAs: L > I/L > U > Impact

PTX DAs: U = L > I/L > Impact

CP

Condo debate should be condo is good/bad - not sure there's a "good" number of condo

PICs are generally good.

I'll judge kick if you tell me to.

Read all of the perms but also put them in the speech doc.

Perms aren't advocacies; they are tests of competition, impact out perm theory.

I will listen and vote on all types of CP theory. Just win your arg.

K

I'm probably gonna understand your K--with that said, please don't expect me to know all of the lit of your K--explain it.

You should take the time in CX or a block overview to explain the story of the K. Performance style debate is interesting to me but you will have to explain your framework from the beginning.

Fiating your cap alts is funny and people should do it more.

If you go for pomo/deeper theory, I'll most likely need some explanation.

I default to weigh the aff vs the alt, but I can be easily convinced otherwise "Justify your epistemology and THEN weigh the aff" is my favorite counter-interp.

Reject the aff is not an alt. I'm not interested in voting for a K that has no coherent alternative worldview/path to action.

If you read a K you don't understand I probably wont vote for it

T/Theory

Be topical. Or don't. Just win why your approach is good.

I default to competing interps, unless told otherwise.

I truly believe that conditionality is good.

Trying to sneak in a 5-second ASPEC shell will result in a major speaker point decrease and going for it will warrant new 1AR answers because even if the 2AC drops your theory shell, convincing me to vote on ASPEC will require much more block elaboration that "Interp: spec your actor, ASPEC is a voter for clash and fairness"

Extra-resolutional procedurals are often frivolous and silly and should most likely lose to a predictability/I'm sorry I'll do it next round argument.

Disclosure is infinitely good. Please do it.

Case debate

Teams underestimate the importance of case debate. The neg should put lots on the flow on case.

Impact turns are one of my favorite arguments.

K Affs

The best K-Aff teams beat framework on a) a counter-interp with a strong defense of the resolution under their model or b) a convincing impact turn to neg standards.

I've noticed an increase of K affs without a real "ballots key" argument that should definitely lose to the ballot PIK. That trend is probably not good for y'all without a plan.

Please read the ballot PIK instead of frame subtraction.

You do you. Do what you like, and tell me why I care about it.

I'm sympathetic to framework. Procedural fairness is (probably) an impact.

LD

The closer to policy, the better.

PF

Please. No.

Things not to do

don't. steal. prep.

Don't say anything sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic-90% of the time auto loss, 100% of the time you will get as low speaks as possible

Don't use problematic language--Trigger warnings and alternate cases should be available in applicable cases.

Don't be rude to your opponents/teammate/me/other judges-Everyone has worked unbelievably hard, so you should treat them like it.

Don't refuse disclosure.

Don't be mean -- being an aggressive debater is amazing -- don't step over the line.

Don't shake my hand. Please.

If you have any questions email me :)

Hello!

Debate:

I'm most familiar with Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum, but I'm always looking for a few things:

Speed & Speaking- I don't care about how fast you can talk. I care about how clear your words are, and that you add some personality to your debating. Debate shouldn't have to be clinical, you can actually show that you enjoy what you do. But, if you do want to spread a little bit, I personally don't mind. Just be aware that I'm not an incredibly high flow judge.

Presentation- I don't stand at all for rude debaters. Respect is important if you want to be a successful debater: controlling a cross or a round in general isn't about being rude or demanding, it's confidence. There's a fine line.

(LD) Value & Value Criterion- This is the key to a Lincoln Douglas case. If a side can genuinely prove that they can win the Value-VC debate, I will almost always flow to their side. The value is supposed to be the foundation of all your arguments in a Lincoln Douglas case, so you should be able to uphold this throughout the round and convince the judge of it's importance.

Speech/Interp: My speech/interp experience is consistent across all events.

The things I care most about when judging interp comes from 1) passion, 2) characterization, 3) content, 4) clarity, and 5) originality

1) I need to see performers who genuinely radiate passion for their event. Even if you don't feel like it can be felt, judges can feel when a performer is bored with their piece. Especially this year, keeping your judges attention comes from liking what you do! Have fun with it!

2) Strong characterization- whether it be in a variety of unique and consistent HI characters, a strong and well developed DI character, or even just having great personality interwoven into a speaking event: show some personality!

3) Compelling content is important. A piece with an interesting story, developed arcs, and clear organization definitely gives you extra quality points!

4) Being a clear performer is really important. The words you say can only have power if you're a clear speaker to begin with.

5) Seeing overdone topics, cliche selections and more are all just a make it or break it element of judging. Being unique is a way to really stand out in the round.

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

Hi y'all, I'm Greta, She/Her. I competed 4yrs PFD & CX Debate for Park Hill, and I now do Parli and NFA LD for Concordia University Irvine.

The most important thing in any event or competition is learning + growth, so if you have questions about my paradigm or RFD - don't hesitate to contact me. (gretajanie@gmail.com or socials @greta.janie) My bottom line for judging is that I love debate, and I want everyone to have a fun, positive experience in this activity, so get out there and do your thing, in your style!

A few specifics:

IE Platform Events - I rank based on how engaged you keep me, + technical performance based on event.

IE Interp Events - I rank based on how connected I felt to your piece + technical performance based on event.

Debate Events - I'll flow anything, I'll vote on anything, speed is okay, include me on the email chain/speechdrop (gretajanie@gmail.com), if evidence discrepancies are a big enough deal in the round, I'll call for cards. Generally I go for tech over truth, but if the arg is ridiculous enough, I'll flip.

Two dealbreakers for me:

1) I don't tolerate rudeness towards opponents. I will give you zero speaks and sign the ballot against you. Be civil, don't make your opponents cry.

2) If your case/piece needs a trigger warning, you'd better have it on there and give your opponents a chance to request that you run a different case. I'll tank speaks for this.

Taylor Layman :)

they/she/he

Truman high school class of 2023

Put me on the email chain taylor.laymandebate@gmail.com

Pls TW antisemitism, homophobia, abuse and su!c!de before sending out docs - it's fine to read things with these mentions I would just like a little bit of a warning preferably

Top line/rando quick things

Don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic

You do you, I will flow it

Be nice

I much prefer fast rounds but I need to be able to understand you

If you have written blocks/overviews/arguments for your speech put them into the doc I like to read them and follow along (+.1 speaks if you do this I really enjoy it, it also means when I am making my decision I have written arguments to refer back to along with cards which I like)

Don't shake my hand

Disclosure is good

DA's

do what you like here i really dont care.

CP's

Condo is usually good but I will vote on whatever

I tend to er neg on general counterplan theory but again I can be swayed either way

K's

K's are cool K v K is fun, Framework is believable when you make it so, just saying it's not fair is not that.

T

I love T, I love theory and arguing about debate in general. I think it's fun.

Do what you'd like here

Case

Case debate is great. You should read many many case answers and args as negs

LOVE LOVE LOVE case turns

Things you shouldn't do

Be mean

Clip

Not use all of cross ?? (why do novices do this? It is free prep time just ask what a card means)

Steal prepp

take a significant time to send out docs, it just annoys me

Not have pronouns listed on tabroom or in chat or in zoom

What's up gamers.

I am a policy debater at Truman High School (Grad 2023) and I qualified for the national tournament in the 2019-20 season with more to come.

Pronouns - He/Him

Please call me Adam in round.

Put me on the email chain - adamleblancdebate@gmail.com

The DOs

I absolutely love turns. A well-run turn can make a DA into an advantage and vice versa. This is a very fun part of debate. If you run a turn, you won't get an auto-win, but it'll be a much more interesting debate to watch and judge.

I also enjoy wacky arguments. If you are running anything that isn't just a generic arg, I much prefer that to a generic debate.

DA

Very good. Very reliable. Not much else here

CP

Counterplans and PICs (Plan inclusive counterplan) are generally good. Conditionality is also good.

K

I am extremely unfamiliar with Ks. However, if you're running a K, run it with confidence. I will assess the arguments you are making to the best of my ability and will judge accordingly.

Case

Case debates are FANTASTIC. I feel that the neg in most cases should put an equal amount, if not more on the flow on case than the aff.

The DONTs

Please do not call me judge in round. It's a bad habit and although I won't count you off for it, it's better to get you all into the habit of not calling your judge "Judge" in round. It's seen as dehumanizing and annoying in most cases.

Do not steal prep. Emailing speech docs to your opponents and/or myself is not prep time. On the other hand, talking starts with your partner, emailing to your partner only, and changing the speech doc in any way will ALL be considered prep time in my eyes and I will count time of as such.

Don't be personally offensive. Personal attacks in any way, shape, or form will result in an immediate DQ.

Racism, sexism, bullying, and anything offensive to anyone within the room will NOT be accepted and will definitely tank you speaker points, if not get you DQed.

In short

The most important thing about debate in my eyes is that you have fun and enjoy what you're doing. I get it can be stressful and intense but at the end of the day, it's not world ending if you lose a round. It happens to the best of us. Thank you for reading and have fun :)))

Hey how you doing baller

What's up I'm a Policy Debater at Truman HS and qualified in nationals in the 19-20 season and hopefully more.

SOME THINGS I LIKE

Link Turns and Impact Turns are very cool If done well. If you know how to run one those debates are super fun to watch and you love to see it. If you run a good one and one that isn't just there because you saw my paradigm you won't win automatically obviously but you'll get points in my book.

Topicality debates can also be very fun BUT ONLY if there are real grounds for topicality. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not make the whole round about T if the aff is obviously topical. BUT if its a good T argument I enjoy those debates.

Legit Policy rounds are very fun to watch. Like extinction impacts and war and structural violence impacts are fun because that's my game and I think they make debate more fun.

Counterplans I'm definitely cool with. Run one if you want to I'm cool with whatever.

PICS (Plan Inclusive Counterplans- know the difference) are definitely fine I like a lot of them but If there abusive Ill call you out on my notes.

THINGS IM COOL WITH

Spreading is definitely fine with me but if you are just speaking gibberish just take your time. I more enjoy FLAY debates or whatever just because I like understanding you but if you wanna spread go for it.

Flowing isn't something I'm gonna dox you for obviously but just as a suggestion I would flow and you probably have a better chance of doing better flowing but that's more of a suggestion.

Generics are all right just make sure It links if your gonna do it.

THINGS I DONT LIKE

Please do not do Kritique debate If there is anything I don't want you to run Its that. If you run a K you are more than likely of not winning

PIKS are also something I'm not a fan of. Plan Inclusive Kritiques are just a no-no please don't run them.

Also, you don't have to explain everything to me If your cards and your analytics explain it you don't HAVE to give an overview, especially on every card.

Also please do not make the ENTIRE debate just cards. I need analytics I need to know that you know what your talking about and not just something your coach gives you.

THINGS I WILL NOT TOLERATE

Innate bullying, racism, sexism, and homophobia are an immediate DQ.

If your entire strat is bullying your opponent and ad hominin attacks so that they give up you will be DQed. No ifs and or buts about it. Its gross, demoralizing, and ruins debate for people.

I'm not gonna allow a debate to go on if there is repetitive and innate card clipping. I will give a little leeway because we make mistakes and maybe you didn't even notice. But things like skipping a lot or manufacturing and such just ruin debate and you shouldn't do it.

IF YOUR READING THIS GOODLUCK

Shelbee Reeves

She/Her

THS Speech & Debate President

Add me to the email chain: shelbee_reeves23@isdschools.org

UK TOC and Nationally-Qualified Congressional Debater (HoA District Champion, finaled at Catholic + others)

Current: LD, CX, and USX

Pretty experienced in PF too

Policy

I tend to view arguments through a realistic lens. I'm not a fan of judge intervention and I'll do my best not to allow my perspectives to influence my judging, but I will say that if it isn't at least somewhat imaginable in the world, I am probably not going to vote for it.

- Spreading is fine, but please put me on the email chain. That's not to say that you should be completely unintelligible every time you stand up to speak.

- Links are so important. If it doesn't link or the link is weak, you're skating on thin ice. Probably my biggest voting issue.

- Impacts are all up to you. I'm interested in hearing about the big impacts like extinction and space war...if you can link to it. If not, I probably won't vote for you.

- Solvency is huge. If you can't show solvency, that's an automatic L. This is a voting issue.

- Topicality is only as good as the argument you're making. However, if you drop T, that is very bad (kind of a given)

- CPs, PICs, and all those wonderful things: I am cool with any as long as you truly solve better than the Aff. If your CP is essentially the same thing as the Aff but with one minor difference, I'm probably just going to vote Aff. Once again, solvency really matters. Show me not only that you can solve, but that you solve uniquely better than the Affirmative.

- Ks. The K is only as good as it is competitive. If you expect me to vote on it, I expect you to defend it heavily throughout the round, especially if the alt involves my ballot. That being said, I am not likely to vote on anything having to do with identity politics. I have watched too many rounds in which debaters were forced to deny their own identities in order to be competitive, and that defeats the entire purpose of the K. Do you, but know that I am not likely to vote for it if you (a) deny someone else's hardship or existence or (b) don't have any idea what your literature means or what the alt does.

- Disclosure. Do it. If they ask, tell them. If you refuse to disclose just to be shady and I know about it, yikes. I will say that disclosure theory often comes off whiny to me ... do with that what you will

LD

- I prefer traditional LD to progressive. Slow down and explain why I should vote on your framework. Analysis is so much more important than evidence. Don't throw a bunch of cards at me and expect me to vote on it. Tell me WHY. Give me some good voters at the end of the debate.

- Be unique. Generic arguments are no fun and it's hard for me to see why I should consider them in specific cases.

- Framework. Don’t run some bs philosophy you pulled out of a hat in order to confuse your opponent. If the philosophy is ridiculous, I will use your opponent's framework in making my decision. Explain how your framework outweighs in the context of the resolution so that I know what I'm voting on.

- Not big on disclosure in LD. Put me on the email chain if there is one but I'm not expecting it.

- Ks. See my thoughts above.

Puf

Most of the same themes apply as above: make sure you link to your impacts, show me why your world is preferable, tell me why I should care, and be a kind human.

Congress

- In the wise words of every judge's Congress paradigm I've ever had, advance the debate. Please don't make me listen to the same points over and over.

- Really listening for warrants. Make them strong.

- Presiding Officers - if you do a good job, you will be in my top three. Thank you for sacrificing your opportunity to debate. I think people forget that the activity can't happen without a competent PO and you deserve recognition for stepping up. (coming from someone who lost one too many opportunities for stepping up as PO)

Anything + Everything

• Don't waste either of our time going for an abusive argument. If it's not against the rules, it's fair game. These arguments are whiny and have nothing to do with the debate.
• Card clipping is a huge no. I will point it out, I will dock your speaks, and I will vote you down 95% of the time. It's grimy. Get good.
• You don't need to bring it to my attention that there are no new args in rebuttals. I am flowing, I am a debater, I am aware of the rules.
• Assume I'm ready so that we don't have to do the awkward "judges ready" song and dance every time you speak.
• If you act like a jerk, I will copy and paste a bunch of sportsmanship theory on your ballot. It costs zero dollars to be polite, just saying.

Most importantly, make it a good experience for yourself and your opponent(s). This is a great activity and I hope you enjoy it as much as I do :) <3

Hi there,

I am very familiar with this policy topic, therefore I will be able to follow along just fine and already understand the background of the topic.

If there is an email chain please include me in it:

iskate1516@gmail.com

Speed

(Virtual) - I am okay with some speed, but due to the nature of video chatting the audio is horrible. I'd rather have quality over quantity.

- If I can't understand you due to your speed, I won't stop you. I just won't flow it. Meaning at the end of the round if it's not on my flow then I'm not going to consider it.

- Do not feel the need to spread or talk faster if you are not comfortable with it.

Stock Issues

- I'm not a fan of when people run inherency as an argument unless there is a major dispute

- In solvency, if you have a weak solvency argument I will most likely give that to the neg, but only if they catch it

- Solvency turns are a thing and they're fun if ran correctly.

- Make sure you have a strong link card, have noticed with this topic, the link cards are weak

DA's

- Turns are fun for impacts, but you can't us say that you're turning it. Read me a card, and give me and under view of why that's possible.

- I don't like extinction arguments for impact, if you're going to run that then you need a strong internal link

- DA's are important in my voting decision

- Long link chains are weaker DA'S

- At the end of the round you should be going for the DA that you believe has the most value to the round, do not run the entire neg case.

Topicality

- I do not like T on substantial

- T is fun, but don't run it if you don't plan on going for that in the neg rebuttal

- If you don't bring it up in all of your speech, then I will flow it as a dropped

- T isn't a voter for me, in most cases

- There is on T that I will 95% of the time vote on, but not a lot of people run it. Or if they do run it, it is not used in the correct context.

CP's

- A lot of people don't have all the components for a CP which discourages me from voting on the CP the aff also has to catch the improper set up. The aff has to bring that up though.

- CP must solve better, give me your interpretation of why you solve better

- I like cp's but it must be ran correctly

Abusive arg

- I don't like abusive arguments, they're very whiny.

- They're a time waster, spend your time on better args

- You don't need to bring it to my attention that they brought up a new arg in the rebuttals. I flow speeches. I will write on their ballot that I didn't flow that argument.

- I was once a novice debater too, and novice 2A's are very notorious for bringing up new args in the 2AR

Other policy related notes

- K's do not belong on the novice circuit especially in Missouri

- Impact calc should be ran

- If there are tech issues on my end I will stop you and pause the time, as it is fair to judge everyone the same - if the other team can't hear you I would like for them to say something

- Don't steal prep, I time everyone and everything.

- I read evidence , if your card says something completely different than what the other wrote, that will be on the ballot

- Dates are relevant but at the same time it's not the biggest thing in the world to me. However if your entire case is from '14 then I'll probably mention it. But don't spend your time arguing dates.

- The purpose of cx if for clash and clarification - if you run vagueness on their plan or whatever it may be - I will probably not swing that argument your way.

PuF and LD

- I am more familiar with LD than PuF

- In LD hold up your criterion and value

- At the end of the round I don't want to have to go back and go through all my flow to see which side should win it should be obvious by the last 2 speeches

PLEASE READ THIS

If you're being rude in any shape way or form, you will get last in the round. In cx I'm okay with interrupting but don't be rude. Don't say anything offensive. If I feel that you're being sexist, racist, or disrespectful, I will write it on your ballot for your coach to see.

Truman '22

Wichita State '26

Assistant Coach at Maize HS

(He/Him)

Email- aydebate22@gmail.com

Former 2A, reformed 2N

I think debate should be an opportunity to put research skills to the test. I highly value good evidence spin and think in many instances teams who tell me what their evidence says wind up better off than teams who just read what the evidence says.

I think the only ideological predisposition that affects me the most is my neg lean on a lot of theory questions. Condo is probably good and certainly doesn't outweigh T but I've recently been finding myself persuaded by condo bad a lot more. Edit: I have oddly enough recently become far more convinced that it's good for the aff to extend and go for condo despite making the switch to 2N. That isn't to say I am easy to win on the argument but rather that I can be persuaded either way. For it to be viable, however, aff teams need to start contextual analysis and interp debating in the 1AR and slow down so I can flow everything.

Evidence quality is something I've noticed decline at a shocking level. No author qualifications, shady websites, poor highlighting to the extent that there's no warrant highlighted, etc. Even though I noted above appreciation for evidence spin, that spin should incorporate indicts to bad evidence from the other team. If they read a card that's tagged, "BBB Passes." and the only words highlighted are "BBB" and "Passes" I feel no reason to consider that card in my decision.

Don't be needlessly mean to your opponents. Being blatantly racist/sexist/transphobic etc. will certainly tank your speaks and probably lead to an L. Making fun of bad evidence does not require attacking the character of who you're debating.

Most of my debate influence comes from Parker Hopkins.

General Scales

Teams should adapt---------------------------X----Judge should adapt

Policy---------------X----------------K

Tech----------X---------------------Truth

Counterplans aren't fair--------------------X-----------Counterplans are fun

Nothing competes----------------------X---------Summers 94

Conditionality good----------X---------------------Conditionality bad

Reasonability--------------X-----------------Competing interpretations

Death good is acceptable-----------------------X-------Not a good argument

Case Debate

Impact turns can be exceptionally fun but often times are full of terrible literature. Teams should point that out.

I think teams are scared to go for turns vs affs that aren't flat out impact turns and I think both evidence wise and strategically it's a good idea to put hefty link turn arguments on case.

A lot of affs are so painfully shady in their advocacy that I think the neg certainly gets to make assumptions and assertions about what the aff actually does.

Teams often do impact comparison exclusively at the terminal impact level without incorporation of vital solvency deficits implications to that calculus.

DA

There's a lot of focus on reading an unnecessary number of cards in the block on certain arguments. If 1NRs cut UQ cards in half in favor of link cards I think the debate certainly winds up further in your favor.

If you are gonna read 2 minutes of UQ then my smallest request is to make the tags funnier. I'll give extra speaks if you make the worst part of the debate a bit sillier.

Politics is one of my favorite arguments but I think there comes a time when people should recognize that a DA is beyond repair. Sometimes truth can ethos wise outweigh tech in these debates that makes it feel displeasing to vote on a PTX DA.

Top of any neg speech with a DA after the 1NC should start with something like, "DA outweighs and turns case."

The Rider DA can be a lot of fun and holds an interesting implication for affs but I think it's almost always very flawed at an internal link level.

CP

If an aff is really good enough you should be able to answer every counterplan just by winning it's different from the 1AC. Not being able to do that is not the fault of the negative.

Non condo theory issues are 99% of the time a reason to reject the argument, not the team so if you list them as a reason to do so in 2AC cross you should have a reason why that's true before I hold the neg to answering it with anything else than "reject the arg, not the team."

Clever PICs can be really fun debates but word PICs can be a little more lifeless than others and less fun to debate and evaluate.

Judge kick is usually my default. It makes since to me that the neg always defends the squo even if they introduce other advocacies because their role is simply to prove that whatever change the aff makes is the wrong one.

K

A lot of my first hand K knowledge is limited to Cap, set col, or Heidegger but I feel comfortable in a decent bit of these debates. I think the more abstract and post modern the K leans the more I find myself feeling confused and I'd hope for more explanation.

I think a good link debate is frequently a lost art. A lot of teams will just assert that there is one but I think there really needs to be an explanation of the direct effects of voting aff. That doesn't mean it has to be a disad style story of cause and effect but explain what the aff's theorization of things justifies and use their evidence and authors to prove it. I think that link explanation also requires a reason why the alt solves it. Good enough link debate gives teams a better chance of winning without the alternative and if a team chooses to kick the alt absent a solid link your chances of winning certainly go down.

A lot of framework interpretations that don't have an end point that allow the aff to weigh its stuff vs the K seem counterproductive to me. Framework should function not just to the advantage of the K's impact and solvency calculus but should also have relatively clear parameters for what an aff must do to weigh itself. I think usually framework interpretations are better the more simplistic and common they are (the aff should be an object of research that must justify its scholarship is typically a solid interp) Otherwise it ends up too self serving.

The alt should be able to be explained to tangibly do something. Alts that just "refuse" or "reject" something seem counterintuitive to political progress in a lot of ways because I don't think they can ever have an endpoint that solves the Ks impacts.

K Affs

I've only been on the negative in these debates but I don't think I've wound up as opposed to critical affirmatives as my coaches or even partner. There's no doubt that affirmatives that challenge the resolution are important to debate as a whole but since I've spent most of time thinking about neg strategies I think a lot of my views can be filtered through weighing traditional neg offense.

I think affirmatives are always best whenever they take advantage of the 1AC to leverage a counter model of debate that can access some of the negs offense. It's hard to convince me in a competitive setting that procedural fairness is outright bad whenever the affirmative is required to engage in some procedurally fair part of the activity before the 1NC even occurs, that said I think impact turns should be paired with reasons why the affirmatives model can avoid said offense.

Affirmatives really need a clearly defined theory of power and a reason why that should filter neg offense. Aff teams who read a bunch of authors who would probably disagree with one another and throw made up words into tags are more likely to lose my attention than win my ballot.

I should be able to explain what voting aff endorses and why the model that comes with it is better than whatever the negative proposes.

Neg teams in these debates should be more direct and willing to read a lot of off case positions. For one it can be effective against teams who are only ready to answer 2 or 3 off, but also I think it helps get a gage on what the aff actually does and helps point out contradictions in what they advocate for.

Topicality/Procedurals

T is one of the more fun arguments in debate because I think it's good to limit out bad or shady affirmatives in real time.

I feel like Extra and Effects T affs are more common and that's dumb. Aff teams usually just say "because there's extra stuff from the plan you get more DA links." That's ridiculous and neg teams should put a stop to it.

Impact debate on T needs to occur alongside a counter explanation of what the neg interp does to both solve it and create better debate as a whole. It feels like a lot of T debates suffer from serious disconnect.

Most procedural arguments are lost on me as legitimate reasons to vote against an aff team. Procedurals that require unorthodox things of the affirmative usually seem silly to me.

Sneaking in ASPEC is quite ridiculous and I will decrease speaks of any neg team who hides the analytic or sends out everything in the 1NC except for it. If it's short enough that the aff team doesn't notice it I'll guess that's because it's not warranted enough to justify voting negative and the 1AR will get new answers.

As far as I'm concerned there's only one procedural type argument that's of immediate value:

Disclosure is probably one of the most important things about modern debate. I come from a school where my partner and I were the only team consistently debating with a small coaching staff. Despite that, I think I'm opposed to the view that disclosing is even close to bad for smaller programs. I agree a lot with Chris Roberds here, "I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow / sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, new, or international schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive." Teams should disclose what stuff they read and open source docs on the wiki. If you tell me you open sourced the round I'll bump speaks. All of this comes with some caveats like the neg should ask for disclosure before the round before they make the argument in the 1NC, which requires that both teams come to the room (or zoom) shortly after pairings are released. I think if the aff team flat refuses to disclose anything (on the wiki or preround after being asked) than I can easily be convinced on the theory argument but the the neg did not attempt to get disclosure or if there are a reasonable set of interrupting circumstances for the aff pre round then maybe I will give leeway. Your best bet is to have some sort of physical evidence (ie a screenshot of an email which was not answered or if you ask for disclosure while I am in the room and the aff says no) and contextualize the violation.

My name is Alec Snider (he/him) and I am on the varsity team at Raytown South High School.

I have experience in PUF debate, but I prefer IE. I participate in Congress, DI, POI, and Prose.

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)

My email (If there's an email chain, please be sure to add me): selinatahirkheli@gmail.com

Experience and Overview:

I'm currently a freshman in college at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. I did speech and debate all four years of high school but no longer do it in college. In high school, my main three events were Policy, Original Oratory, and POI, but I also have experience in Congress and Prose. I don't have too much experience with LD (apart from competing in it at one tournament) or PFD. I've judged novice rounds and gotten some baseline knowledge from those, but nothing too crazy. So if I'm judging you in a PFD or LD round please ask me clarification questions before the round starts. As for policy, I debated on a generally lay circuit throughout most of my whole school experience, but I attended NSDA Nationals for policy sophomore year, and Northwestern's 4-week debate camp going into my junior year, so I have some flow debate experience. But don't expect too much from me as I did do mainly lay debate the rest of my junior year and senior year. I will be able to follow most arguments, but some things will have to be explained in order for me to have a better understanding (I'll explain more below).

Although this isn't as relevant, I also have a lot of speech experience if you were wondering, or if I'm judging you in IEs. I went to nationals my junior year in Original Oratory, and I did fairly well locally from my sophomore through senior year in it. The same goes for POI. I started competing in it sophomore year, but started advancing regularly my senior year, and placed 5th at districts. If I'm judging you in speech or forensics know that I will be taking lots of notes. Don't mistake it for me not paying attention. Facial expressions, tone, and blocking are things I will definitely be looking at.

General:

The most important thing to me in policy debate is that I have a clear understanding of your argument from the beginning. If I can't see the logic and the details on the flow, I will not vote for it. If you go for a certain argument in the 2NR/2AR, make sure you've made that argument very very clear so there's no confusion. Clarity is very key here.

I'm not too picky with what arguments I want to see. Have fun and enjoy yourself in the round. Make sure you aren't just shoving arguments down my and your opponent's throat for the sake of it, make it clear what the goal is. I do have some suggestions and preferences about certain arguments that I'll get into more down below.

*SPEED: Going to nationals and attending a high-flow debate camp has given me experience in speed, but that DOES NOT mean I will be able to understand everything you say if you choose to go fast. You also have to consider that I'm a little rusty in the speed department, so it's going to take me longer to adjust. Honestly, for me, it was easier spreading and hearing other people spread when I was the one debating. As a judge, it's different since I want to be able to understand almost everything since I will be deciding who wins the round. That being said, if you are absolutely desperate you can spread, but only if you are VERY CLEAR. But if you can help yourself, I'd prefer that you don't spread. Feel free to still read faster than your average person (please do), just don't overdo it with me or else I will start saying "clear". If I say "clear", slow down or I will drop my pen and stop flowing until you slow down for me. Last thing here, please don't spread anything that's not on the speech doc(s). Cards I can follow, but once you start spreading all your analytics (if they aren't on the speech doc), I'm not going to be able to understand them and remember that clarity is important to me.

Arguments:

T: I love T when it's done well. It was one of my favorite arguments in high school because it can be used in so many different cases. if you have a fair interpretation and a good violation, then I'll absolutely consider the T argument. BUT, make sure that it's not just being used as a time waster. If you want to run T in front of me, be prepared to spend a lot of time on it since I consider it to be very important. If you can convince me that there is a 75%-80% the Aff isn't topical, I will vote for you in the round. So if the Neg is doing a good job, be prepared to spend some time here if you're Aff. Your standards and voters should be clearly linked to the Aff. I don't want to hear generics. Please don't spend time explaining generic standards and voters to me like ground, clash, reasonability, fairness, education, etc. I know what these mean, just tell me why they apply. If you want to talk about a unique standard or voter though, please do explain it. Lastly, if you choose to go for T in the 2NR, at least spend a good 3-4 minutes on it, unless they fumble hard on it in the 1AR.

Theory: I honestly don't like theory very much, it feels like a waste of time just to avoid real argumentation on the topic. But if you're good at running it and there's a reason to (and you give me those reasons) I'll still vote on it. You should have an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters. You don't have to go too crazy with the interpretation and violation but they should be there and be clearly connected to the debate. Standards and voters should be a little more specific. Don't just tell me something is a standard and voter for the sake of it being on the flow, explain how each one does/doesn't apply to the debate. Please clash here. I don't want to just hear the same thing in every speech - that's incredibly boring.

Ks: I've run Ks before and I actually really enjoyed arguing on them when I have, but if the K is super complex, I don't want to hear it unless you explain the link and alt very well. The link has to be connected to the case or I won't vote on it. If you use a generic link, please explain why the Aff still applies using analytics - I'll vote on that if it's done well. The alt better not be too ridiculous to the point where the K is just wasting our time. If you want to run a fun K, fine by me, but then you better explain the alt beautifully. Other than that, just have fun with the K, and make sure the picture is clear from the beginning or I won't be able to follow your arguments for the whole debate and you won't win on the K.

DAs: Read anything you want, I'll consider it if the link chain is clear. I will say that I don't understand politics DAs super well, but don't be hesitant to read them if you're actually good at explaining the link chain. You should have a specific link to the aff. PLEASE don't read a generic link without explaining why the Aff actually links into it. You're wasting your time if you don't do that. Lastly, please do impact calculus in your 2NC/1NR and 2NR. And spend time on it. I love impact calculus, so spend time there and really get into terminal impact and the specifics. Teams who spend time on impact calculus and do it will, will certainly get a vote from me if the link chain is also clear at the end of the debate.

CPs: I also love CPs. You can run anything you want here, as well. If you have a fun CP that actually is mutually exclusive, read it! But please run a CP that allows you to clash on the perm debate. I don't want to your perm answers to just be generic, they have to actually make sense. Same goes for the Aff. Please make your permutations clear. Don't just tell me "Perm do aff then do CP" and go down the list, tell me WHY. I will literally stop flowing your list of perms if you don't explain them.

Other:

Please have fun! Remember that this activity is supposed to make you think on your feet and let you clash on arguments, don't make the debate boring by reading generics that have no true meaning to them! If you have any other questions for me before the round, please don't be hesitant to ask them, I would love to answer. If I drop my pen and stare at you, I'm probably not appreciating something you're doing (whether it's speaking too fast once I've said "clear" or being blatantly discriminatory, sexist, biased, etc). Be kind to everyone in the room. I don't want to hear you trash-talking your opponents after the round. That is extremely disrespectful. Other than that, I'm pretty open to most arguments so don't be afraid to try something in front of me as long as you make the argument clear. I'll vote on whatever you tell me to vote on.

email chain - AiriyannahWashington1@gmail.com

I debated in policy for 3 years at Truman high school, along with doing oratory and ld.

*IF VIRTUAL*

you should turn on cameras when it is your turn to speak unless your device can't do that for whatever reason.

quality > speed. we are online so being able to clearly hear arguments matters over speed.

I give feedback, but give me time to finish my rfd and comments.

When it comes to this years policy topic, I have little knowledge on it, so please be clear on your tag lines and what you're referencing to.

Things You shouldn't do

Being sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or any of the ists. If I find you to be doing ANY of these things, I am giving you the lowest ranks possible, you lose the round and I will stop listening.

Giving me a 100-page doc as your evidence. that isn't a speech doc and I shouldn't have to search for what you're saying.

Be weird about giving your evidence to your opponents.

Policy -

I vote on flow not speaking ability.

I will more likely than not vote on solvency.

Disads

do not care for extinction impacts since the likelihood of one plan being able to cause that is unlikely, but have a good internal link and it's valid.

Cps

I think cps are pretty cool if ran correctly. unfortunately, that is a rarity. if you do run one please have a net benefit. no net benefit = no case

Topicality

I do not see a point in running topicality unless you really feel bringing it up is vital in the round. technicality and impact calc is key in topicality. I would like to see it.

kritiks

(novice running k's? okay)

I like policy args more but on K's, I go as far fem, abolition, and anti-blackness. If you go outside of that I can probably follow and flow. on neg, you need to explain to me extensively on your links, and more on why I should vote on this. weigh the k against the aff. on Aff, I feel kritiks should still be somewhat in the resolution. I will more often than not lean more on the topicality argument if you don't explain to me your case well. Essentially, explain and overextend.

I don't care for abusive args but if you feel something in the round is abusive, run it I guess.

Lastly, HAVE FUN. nothing is worse than being in a round where it is hostile and everyone doesn't want to be there. Trust me I've been in those rounds and I don't want to judge one.

Coached:

2023-Present---Shawnee Mission East (Fiscal Redistribution)

Debated:

2019-2023---Truman High School (Arms Sales, CJR, Water, NATO)

2023-Present---University of Kansas (Nukes)

Background Information

He/They

Please call me Owen. Not judge.

I would like to be on the chain but will not read evidence during speeches. My email is owenwilliamsdebate@gmail.com

Pro-scrappy debate. Pro-small schools killing it.

I was taught debate by Parker Hopkins. My debate opinions have been heavily influenced by Maddie Pieropan, especially in the domain of critical arguments and framework.

T/L

Tech + truth > tech > truth

Clarity + speed > clarity > speed

You should make any argument as long as it's not something problematic. I'm very much in the camp that the judge should do 99% of the adaptation and that the debaters should do their thing. The only exception is that I would prefer not to adjudicate a death good debate.

Cross-examination is open. It was never closed. If you pull up to the round and request for/require it to be closed your speaks will be tanked. Stop evading clash.

Email title should be Tournament -- Round # -- Aff (School Code) v. Neg (School Code)

^+.1 speaker points to the 1A if you send the 1AC before I'm in the room/zoom

Cool charts

Teams should adapt------------------------------X-Judge should adapt

Policy-----------X--------------------K

Tech---X----------------------------Truth

X Counterplans aren't fair---------------------------X----Counterplans are fun

Nothing competes--------------------X-----------Summers 94

Conditionality good----------X---------------------Conditionality bad

Reasonability-----------------------------X--Competing interpretations

Death good is acceptable-------------------------X-----You might just be a bad person

Case

In-depth case debating is a lost art. Revive this art and your speaks and decision will most likely reflect such.

Impact turn debates are my favorite debates to judge.

A lot of affs are so painfully shady in their advocacy that I think the neg certainly gets to make assumptions and assertions about what the aff actually does. Defer to solvency advocates, 1ACs should have an advocate that says exactly what the plan does.

K AFFs/Framework

I've been on both sides of these debates and I don't think that I lean particularly far to one side.

Procedural fairness is an impact, but not in the way that teams are increasingly explaining it. If the fairness arguments that you're making are just a workaround to get to the clash impact, you should be going for clash in front of me. Buzz phrases such as "debate is a game" or "T is a-priori" to answer substantive framework arguments are not responsive and will earn you low speaks.

Affirmatives need a clear and obvious theory of power and a reason why that should filter neg offense. Aff teams who read a bunch of authors who would probably disagree with one another and throw made-up words into tags are more likely to lose my attention than win my ballot.

I should be able to explain what voting aff endorses and why the model that comes with it is better than whatever the negative proposes. I'm going to have a high threshold for 2AC/1AR/2AR consistency.

I agree with Maddie Pieropan here - "Competing interpretations are more important to me than most others. This isn't true of all critical AFFs, but if the AFF is a critique of research practices, pedagogy, or orientations towards either, I am generally of the opinion that your angle vs framework should be one that posits a new model of engaging the activity/research that resolves your offense. The threshold to win an impact turn vs framework when reading an AFF about research practices tends to be difficult because it requires winning a threshold of contingent solvency that I don't think is usually achievable, or at the very least are typically poorly explained."

I don't think teams should be reading planless AFFs in the novice division.

T/Theory v Policy

If you're reading a plan it should be a topical one. I prefer competing interpretations over reasonability.

Precision + predictability > debateability

I truly believe that conditionality is good but contradicting advocacies are bad. Punish those teams by going for condo.

Trying to sneak in a 5-second ASPEC shell will result in a major speaker point decrease and going for it will warrant new 1AR answers because even if the 2AC drops your theory shell, convincing me to vote on ASPEC will require much more block elaboration that "Interp: spec your actor, ASPEC is a voter for clash and fairness."

Extra-resolutional procedures are often frivolous and should most likely lose to a predictability/I'm sorry I'll do it next round argument.

CP

1ACs should be built to beat the 5-10 most common CPs on the topic.

Conditionality is good, contradicting advocacies are bad. PICs are good and are one of the most competitive forms of counterplans. AFFs should have to defend the entirety of the AFF.

I lean NEG on: Condo, PICs, ADV CPs, agent CPs, 50 state fiat, condition CPs

I lean AFF on: Consult CPs, International CPs, multi-actor CPs

PICs out of substance are good, word PICs are probably bad.

I'll judge kick if you tell me to.

Non-condo theory issues are 99% of the time a reason to reject the argument instead of the team. Unless there is a warranted reason to reject the team in the 2AC or a cross-application to a different flow, I will often let NEGs get away with nothing more than "reason to reject the argument, not the team.

DA

Specific links > generics. This should be pretty obvious.

Link turns case arguments are good. Like very very good.

Evidence comparison matters. It'll make me a lot happier, give you higher speaks, and make my decision cleaner if I don't have to sift through your card doc looking for warrants that you failed to make in the 2NR.

K

If you go for pomo/deeper theory, I'll most likely need some explanation.

Framework debate matters more to me than most. I default to weigh the aff vs the alt, but I can be easily convinced otherwise. I think most neg framework interps and ROBs are self-serving and probably detrimental to debate. " I usually think AFFs get to weigh consequences/impacts, but you get links to discourse/rhetoric/scholarship, this is easily changed with good framework debating.

I think a good link debate is frequently a lost art. A lot of teams will just assert that there is one but I think there really needs to be an explanation of the direct effects of voting aff. That doesn't mean it has to be a disad style story of cause and effect but explain what the aff's theorization of things justifies and use their evidence and authors to prove it. I think that link explanation also requires a reason why the alt solves it. Good enough link debate gives teams a better chance of winning without the alternative and if a team chooses to kick the alt absent a solid link your chances of winning certainly go down.

Reject the aff is not an alt. I'm not interested in voting for a K that has no coherent alternative worldview/path to action. In the 2NR I don’t think you need an alternative, but you do need to either win framework or the links should have external offense and you should have substantial case defense.

Life has value.

If you read a K that you are not well-versed in it will be incredibly obvious. This is going to make the debate hell for everyone involved and tank your speaks.

How to get good speaks:

Being kind and inclusive to everyone in the round

Clarity

Smart concessions

Sending analytics

Going for the impact turn

How to get bad speaks:

Stealing prep

Being rude

"Can I get a marked doc?" / "Can you list the cards you didn't read?" when less than three cards were marked or just because some cards were skipped on case. Flow or take prep for it.

Refusing disclosure

Trying to shake hands with me (?) weird thing to do

How to get 0 speaks + L:

Any form of bigotry including but not limited to: homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism

Clipping: I will not be reading evidence during the speech. The opposing team will need a video recording of the clipping and will need to stake the round on the violation

yes email chain:armaanyarlagadda@gmail.com

Experience:

Pembroke Hill School '23 (TOC '23)

University of Pennsylvania '27 (NDT '24)

TLDR:

1. Tech > Truth
2. Slow down 15%, not a great flow and won't follow along in speech docs
3. Over-explain even if obvious to you
4. Best for policy arguments, significantly worse for K's
5. Fairness is an impact, and T is often the most strategic choice against K Aff's
6. Not good at evaluating competition debates; believe that CP's must be textually and functionally competitive
7. Great for impact turns, politics DAs, topic-specific DAs
8. Competing Interps > Reasonability

General Info:

Decorum: Be rude and lose speaks. Be racist/homophobic/ableist/etc. and lose the round.

People who have influenced the way I evaluate debates: Parker Hopkins, Ethan Harris, Justin Smith, Truman Connor, Bobby Phillips.

When I debated, the 2NR was usually the impact turn, the DA, or the DA + CP. Because of this, these are the debates I feel most comfortable judging. Don't assume I know what is going on. Please over-explain. I'm not someone who understands things on the fly.

Policy:

I used to care a lot about whether you read a plan or not, but I have since deviated from truth and justice and defended a couple K AFFs, so I'll say this, I am less likely to understand the K and more likely to understand calls for procedural fairness and clash. I am still policy leaning, albeit less than I used to be.

Case: Case debates are the most "real world" part of debate rounds. I feel like negative strategies that do not engage parts of the case miss out. A 2NR just about case seems to be something of the past, but it is definitely still an awesome way to win. The AFF must-win solvency, not a 100% but just some. Otherwise, it is a presumption ballot. Also, framing. I could make framing its own section, but it is the best way for teams to start on a winning foot in impact comparison. Please give me reasons to prefer framing.

DA's: Generic DA's are fine. But, DA's that have impact scenarios that are very specific to the AFF are the best. Please give me reasons why the DA outweighs and turns the AFF. Impact Calculus is necessary.

CP: If it is a one-off CP, you have to win the Net Benefit of solving for more than the AFF and win that the AFF does not get access to a perm or that perm links into negative impacts. In my opinion, perm debates are where negative teams get lost because they cannot explain why it does not solve. Solvency Deficits, Offense, and Theory are also fine against a CP.

T-USFG: Great for T against K AFFs. Fairness is an impact and what I went for when I debated this argument, but I'm fine with clash/skills.

Topicality: Ok for T against Policy AFFs. Impacting out standards and voters is cool to listen to. Your interpretation is a measure of good debate. Remember and defend that. Negative teams that don't run T and try to go for DA's and random solvency deficits against blatantly non-topical AFFs are missing out. The T-Substantial interpretation being a number makes me a little hesitant from the beginning.

Theory: Conditionality is good in most instances, Process CP's are stale and can be beat with theory in most instances, everything else is a debate to be had.

PFD/LD:

I really do not know anything about these events. I know that plans are outlawed in PFD and also that LD is a value/value criterion debate. Besides that, please try to be persuasive. I'll flow it like I do policy, do with that what you will.